Skip to main content

About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 89 (615 MHz)






Starbucks 8, Dpw 5, Mr. Kwong 2, Us 2, Allison Rowe 1, Allison 1, Kevin 1, Timeframes 1, The City 1, Paawan Kothari 1, Sacramento 1, Hwang 1, Stevenson 1, Expresso Subito Llc 1, Sedric Farm 1, Novo 1, Subito 's 1, Gary Goldstein 1, Throt 1, John Kwong 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    January 16, 2013
    6:00 - 6:30pm PST  

>> welcome to the board of appeals meeting for january 16th, 20 . i have been notified that the interpreter is stuck in traffic and we'll have to move on to another case. i would like to see a show of hands for item no. 11, appeal no. 12-142, 2nd street merchants, versus department of public works bureau of street-use and mapping. and:00 no. 12, appeal no. 12-142, paawan kothari, doing business as the chai cart. >> anyone here for that item?
>> perhaps they are out in the hall. >> let's give them a minute. president hwang, which case would you like to begin with? >> item 12. is anyone here for item no. 12, the chai cart? i guess we'll go with item no. 11. >> item no. 11, appeal no. 12-142, 2nd street merchants versus dpt of public works bureau of street-use and mapping. this is protesting the issuance on september 28th, 2012 to
expresso subito llc mobile food facility sale of espresso drinks. this matter is on for rehearing today. this public hearing was held and closed on november 14th 2012 and at that time a motion to uphold the subject mobile food facility permit did not muster sufficient votes to pass the permit and was upheld by operation of law. we'll start with the attorney for the appellant. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i think i made four valid points in the briefing and i'm just going to highlight those quickly and yield the rest of my time to the merchants. the first point is the most salient point which is the due process issue. i think the applicant has admitted or has not disagreed that at least two locations, 301 sacramento street and 303 south sacramento street did not receive notice of the permit. and they sort of tried to
distinguish between the notice of the permit and the notice of an appeal and i think those are two very separate issues. the public works code says that businesses within a 300' radius are entitled to receive notice of the permit. what is the use of giving a notice of appeal after everything is said and done? the second issue is i believe due to radius services mistake, the whole block was missed floatfication area and that is because radio services calculates notice the block using the assessor's block as opposed to what is stated in the public works code, which is the mid-point of the block face. can i just go to this overhead real quickly? okay. so where the x is where expresso subito did the 300' radius, but where the little star is the actual block face. so all the
businesses down here were not notified and one business that dpw testified to was 101 2nd street and no one from that building received notice. the second point is that dpw testified if starbucks objected we most likely would have denied the parent and we have on record that starbucks did object to the permit. they have not withdrawn their objection and the fact that they are not taking an active part in this appeal does not mean they did not object to the permit. third, dpw has been misapplying the 300' radius. the order says 300' radius and public works code says [#350-7b8/]' radius and for them to use a 300' walking distance instead of an radius is an arbitrary and capricious application of law. the like foods argument, we just want dpw to get it right
next time. they said starbucks sells like food within a 3 off and on' radius and the applicant agrees and let's get it right and say we're using our discretion and there is like foods within 300'. allison rowe, this is subito's truck, which they plan to move which is sidewalk service. it's odd that they accepted the permit that expressedly prohibits sidewalk service. two, making apples-to-apples comparisons to menus. three, in march, the hearing officer kevin day said there is a saturation in downtown already about coffee, and 41 was removed aored as a location because it's too dense our menu
is almost exactly the same as subito's and all of my competitors, because we compete with each other. their discretion could not be exercised without a complete set of facts by dpw at the time of decision. 4, there is no bathroom for use. you can't handle money and food. that is part of the health code. it's a health hazard not to have a hand washing simpbetween cashiering and foodservice. the map show twos coffee vendors. subito admitted major disclosures and misled the city. the mobile food facility says the permit is valid om if the
applicant has not misrepresented facts. >> jim patrick -- three things the bathroom, parking and side door on the truck. the bathroom has not been approved by the owner of the building as specifically sets out in the regulations in the law. the bathroom is not 200' from where the truck is. in fact, it's about a block and a half. you have to go half a block across the street and north half a block and up the stairs and back in the mezzanine and i viewed it today and i can tell you it's quite a ways. and there is no handicap path of travel to the bathroom, which is required. no way can the customers use it or the employees use it. no. 2 is parking. it's taking the last two spaces in this whole large two and a half block area of downtown. no parking. we need parking for customers. we don't need parking for coffee. no. 3 the side door, when you open the side door it will take
60% of the sidewalk. it's right in front of a restaurant. when the restaurant puts out their tables it takes up 40% of the table, 60 and 40 last time i checked was 100. where are the pedestrians in it's a problem. we have an illegal bathroom and we're losing the parking and side door operations make it impossible. this deal just doesn't pass muster and when it doesn't pass muster, you can't sell mustard. thank you. >> fill out a card, sir. >> hello, among the other reasons that restaurants is family-owned restaurant -- the problem that we have, i have a couple of points here. we sell coffee in the morning. two, there is always construction getting done there. and as you can see, there is only -- >> reference the overhead, if you want us to see something? >> so as you can see, this is our restaurant there.
and there is only one lane there. that would be our problem. i mean, i don't see how that could be fixed. also we are already receiving enough competition, like allison said. we all sell the same thing. thank you. >> hi, my name is deb serials with serials markets. they claim that i wasn't within 300' and that the access to my location was on market street. in fact, we have never had access on market street. the access to our place is on 2nd and stevenson, a quarter block down, which is within 300'. in my lease it allows me to have a patio. i have a 1500-square-feet patio that i spent $75,000 building. it's exclusively for me and we're within 300'.
we sell organic coffee. >> what is the name of your company? >> sellers markets. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> >> okay. >> >> i'm a private individual. >> >> my name is gary goldstein i'm the permit holdner this hearing. i first applied 16 months ago and i have spent over $100,000 on this business. i relied on dpw policy, which is part of the city policy. there is a specific language in the dpw guidelines which addresses the coffee truck as not to be considered like food outside of a diner. this hearing was triggered by
radio omission which was no fault of mine. all partis were properly notified. i was parented by dpw in september and i have no revenue while having to maintain significant costs of over $1,000 a month and other overhead. the truck is my chance to make a living for my family and it's my only opportunity to have a livelihood. i have acted in good faith. please help me to epihold my permits. thank you. >> good evening my name is debbie cardigan with sedric farm. i am here to ask that you uphold espresso subjectee, but correct the typos and findings pointed out by the appellantment i have a whole thing written here. i have to say there were so
many things that were said that weren't right by the appellants, i don't even know where to start, but i will start with due process. there is this whole issue whether due process was served and there is a question as my client pointed out, he didn't, but it was no fault of his own. radio service may have missed two addresses. two addresses. and those addresses [pwo-pblgs/] got notice of your first board of appeals hearing. this is not different than when you had your hearing on grumpis and off the grid, when grumpies said we didn't get notice because dpw didn't renotice when they switched locations. you took jurisdiction and heard it up uphold the permit with modifications. this is the same thing, a de novo hearing. starbucks hasn't been around in 15 months. they sent one email in november of 2011, saying they were
concerned about ingress and egress. at this point they are nowhere to be found. i spoke with the regional vice president of starbuckss, a guy name david chu who said we don't want to be involved of we want to be neutral. we don't want to do anything more. we're neutral. we're staying out of it. doesn't sound like starbucks is particularly worried. it was just a question of ingress and egress. at this point the closest store to our truck location is 290 feet away. you have to cross a public street to get to a starbucks. yes, it's been 300', but as mr. kwong will tell you, it's just a factor that may be considered by dpw. there are lots of other factors that could be considered, including the fact that starbucks is a gigantic name-brand that people will go to no matter what. they have wi-fi and sell a full menu. in terms of like foods as my client has mentioned he make
his living only with the sale of espresso drinks and coffee. if you look at the guidelines and this is what the city policy he was relying on when he submitted his application says that a coffee cart should not be considered like a diner. all of the people who have been speaking except for starbucks, which isn't here have said that they are operate full-day menus and dpw's stance in this and consistent application of the guidelines has to been to look at totality of the menu. we're merely asking for consistent application of the guidelines. the guidelines say that they are aloud to consider like foods. they don't have to say no, but they can consider them. that is what dpw did here. okit method of measurement that dpw uses to determine like foods is clearly a walking distance. the appellants made a big deal how everywhere in the
guidelines it talks about radius and radius and radius and one place it doesn't. to me, exactly the opposite. the fact that it doesn't say 300' radius there, means that you can do a 300' walking distance which is, in fact, exactly what police department did in past times. regarding the restroom issue, i think we have the owner of the facility that is going to provide the restroom here tonight to speak with you. but i think it's suffice to say that you don't need ada accessible. we have been through this with department of sanitation and the appellant want to the department of sanitation to get this revoked and it didn't work. so i don't know what their issue is. the issue with sidewalk services i would like to use the overhead for one minute to show you the two truck locations. this is the truck location on 2nd street. as you can see the truck location is here. there is a clear path of travel. there
are few tables out here, outside of the path of travel. similarly on front street, this is the truck location. there is a 16' wide sidewalk. and no tables and chairs along here. so those are big deals and they are arguing that there is all of this construction. well, dpw can always stop people from parking in those parking spaces. if they are concerned about blockage, they can do, that otherwise anybody can park there. so those are all issues to by cred when talking about this. the last issue notice not provided correctly. this overhead show where's the notice was provided. as you can see it's the midpoint of the block face. there are small streets. it's true, but look at the name of the block. block 370 7. block 370 7. block 3707.
this is an assessor's block. this is the midpoint of the block face. so i would like to you consider all of these things and i would like you to consider that my client has tried in > faith for 15 months to comply with this process. and i hope that as you know the city may be changing policy, but for the last 15 months he has been working with existing city policy and good faith and has done nothing wrong and just wants the chance to be a good neighbor. thank you very much. >> i have a question. >> yes. so how far is the bathroom from the location of the truck? >> gary? >> 100', maybe. >> about 100' is what gary is saying. >> excuse us. >> what we can do, if you would like, we can work with the restaurant owner and see if we can get a map available to show to you during public
comment period. would that be okay? >> okay. >> thank you. mr. kwong. >> good evening commissioners john kwong from the department of public works. there appears to be a continual different interpretations from the various parties related to the department's process. let's first go to the notification. the notification as stated by the various partis is correct about what is a truck. it's located -- the notification is to be 300' radius from the mid-point of the block or the length of block, whichever is greater. that is how the legislation is written up. when it's a food cart as such at a specific property address it's 300' from that throt.lot. it's relates to the evaluation
of like foods, the department tries its best to make sure it's been 300'. we make that determination as it relates to like foods. now to suggest that we use a 300' radius, it would be as the bird flies, which would not be appropriate. previously under the previous legislation that has been since suspended which came from the san francisco police department, the police department requires 600' distance, which the police department actually uses a measuring wheel to wheel off for their validation. this has been the practice of the police department. and the department of public works sees no reason to establish another way of evaluating these distances. it would not be possible for staff to walk through buildings and what not. it must be a walking distance for us to accurately determine the distances.
there was a question again going back to like foods. we have people suggesting that in the morning, all they serve is coffee and that is competition as it relates to like food. however, as stated previously, again, in our order, as to established guidelines, we determine like food by looking at the totality of the menu in order to be fair and consistent. otherwise, there is no way for the department to make that evaluation. we literally have to send someone out there and stand there for different timeframes, in order to make that determination. that would not be propriety. appropriate. >> there were questions related and i have to apologize. when i went back and reevaluated the finding from the director, we made a small error putting down 3 radius. it should be 300 feet.